It'll leave your wallet lighter, your nose sore and you'll have the hangover of the century because it makes you think you can drink like bacchus himself.
But then I'm probably getting old, I don't wish to pay such a price for my fun any more.
Well, given that any additional delay in an airport already beset by myriad "security" delays is a problem and might make you miss a flight and could, as a result ruin your holiday, I'm not sure that's melodramatic.
And as we're seeing more examples of people being detained and denied travel for pretty spurious reasons, well no, I don't consider any extra people going to a secondary screening lottery to be any better.
OTOH I really don't think it's that uncommon amongst geeks to screw up wording, phraseology, pronunciation and/or intonation when talking to authority figures or (attractive) members of the opposite sex.
Dunno how true this might be, but bear with my conjecture here -
If you're the sort of person so convinced in the reality and greatness of Allah that you'll willingly go to your own death, does that not imply something in the way of confidence in what you're doing?
Ordinary hijackers may be different, but a religious terrorist already on their way to martyrdom?
"That is, we have to be realistic about the rates of false positives so that we don't make the bottlenecks worse for minimal payoff."
RTA, the false positive rate is about 99%. The people caught have been people in possession of drugs, or other minor issues (by the sounds of it). I'd be interested to learn the background rate in society and how this compares to random selection.
"I think it's important to encourage organizations to properly resource these sorts of efforts because the alternatives simply aren't as effective"
1. I think a monkey could do better 2. It'll never be properly resourced because the usual crowd will do the job - those who will accept standing around for hours on end in exchange for a little money and a little power over others.
"I appreciate the skepticism of the/. crowd, but I think we need to recognize that some policies and mechanisms are better than others if we want people to listen to us."
Yup, the policy of leaving me the hell alone and stopping kicking the wasps nest (middle east) would probably be just as good.
Being observed and making note of their behavior for further observation is not a full cavity search or being hassled for hours.
If they're just observing and taking notes then, pardon my french, what fucking use is that? If they're doing more than that then (whilst the cavity search comment was deliberately over the top) it could develop into anything.
People don't give people "funny looks" by accident.
Yup, yes they do. I do. You'll find multiple other posts in response to this story from people who are socially inept, or whose hold over their own "normality" slips when stressed.
They do it on purpose, then claim later they're misunderstood.
You're not inside my head. Things come out weirdly, worded wrongly, stuttered. This happens frequently when I'm nervous and I don't think for a second I'm unique.
Been in IT long enough to know there's generally a victim mentality coupled with a minor god complex.
Maybe it's time to get out of the server room and meet some software engineers.
Anti-authority and pro-chaos are two distinctly different things. Not attempting to find and stop bad guys is pro-chaos.
Define bad. The people trying to catch "bad" guys have some pretty screwed up values of "bad" these days. And I am pro some chaos. We have a multitude of unfair, unjust and just plain stupid laws on the books. I do not support any move by the mechanisms of state to further enforce their codes of law, to further impinge upon people's lives or to further extend their own powers until such time as we have had full on democratic reform (to rid of us of corruption and corporate rule) and legal review (to restore our freedom of action and rid ourselves of nanny statism).
OK, I'll bite. Explain to me why you might disagree that someone lighting a shoe bomb is not a bad guy doing a bad thing.
No. They are doing a bad thing. However these methods are already being used as a great trawl net to catch people on grey areas like drug possession. I do not agree that drug possession being a bad thing, nor does it warrant everyone coming under even more scrutiny when trying to travel peacably. In fact not only is it an intrusion into peoples lives it's a total waste of resource.
That's what this is about. To carry on with that note: you may disagree with using "unreliable" methods, but I note you provide not a single suggestion as to a "reliable" one.
Why should I? I think airport security is an overblown mess and we can do without these techniques.
"Are you going to go into a school playground and blow yourself apart along with many kids because of these measures?"
???
What I meant was that if you're paranoid then the authorities will start taking an interest. So you'll probably get worse, and they'll take more of an interest and... Thus paranoia (they're all after me!!) becomes reality.
I didn't mean that the fear of terrorism is a self fulfilling prophecy. How did you reach that conclusion?
"Then again, I don't insist on wearing tinfoil hats. I WANT bad guys doing bad things caught. I guess I'm in the minority here on/."
Oh me too. We all want bad guys doing bad things to be caught. But here on/. you'll find that people aren't quite as willing as average to submit to full body cavity searches in the name of their own security. Or being hassled for hours in an interrogation room because you looked at someone funny. Maybe because we're more socially dysfunctional than average and are always giving people funny looks by accident...
You might also find the roots of the more prevalent anti-authoritarian attitude here on/. have something to do with the constant flow of stories here on/. (and, to be fair, anywhere else people with half a brain gather) about bad legislation, bad policing, corrupt or transparently bought-out government.
I fundamentally do not agree with the current crop of legislators on who is a "bad guy doing a bad thing", and I also fundamentally disagree with using unreliable methods to detect said individuals.
"The problem is behavioral characteristics will be found where you look for them," the American Civil Liberties of Massachusetts legal director John Reinstein told The Washington Post.
"When someone lies or tries to be deceptive,... there are behavior cues that show it.... A brief flash of fear."
Now, creative editing aside (lotsa dots in there), what happens when I display a fear microexpression when I'm asked if I have any bomb?
Because that's what's going to happen, because with all this overhyped security I'm tense and slightly afraid when I'm dealing with these people anyway. Why? Because they have the power, on suspiciuon alone, to really ruin my day, my entire holiday, my business trip or perhaps even my life, depending on just how far they want to take everything.
So yes, when I get a grilling from a security agent, he's going to see fear. And the fact I now know (s)he's looking for it will make it even more likely.
Welcome the new world where paranoia becomes a self fulfilling phenomenon.
Not at all. A human baby is recognized by our society as having human rights and responsibilities
And there's where your post falls down. By our society. Which you are proposing to change anyway by the introduction of this so called "freedom". By using the phrase "in our society" you show that this is all still relative. Where exactly is the line drawn? Maybe "freedom" in another society does include child murder. By your own admission children can't take on responsibilities until later, which you consider the price of rights. Historically, some societies have considered children to be property of parents until that point and parents have the right of life or death. Are you going to take away their freedom of choice?
The point I'm trying to make is that the moment you try and draw any sort of line, you'll fail.
You mean it isn't the same because it is one of the choices you disagree with, or do you have some other criteria you think differentiates it?
I made it explicitly clear in my last post I consider it qualitatively different. And yes, the phrase "I consider" is roughly equivalent to "in our society".
I recognize that my beliefs and values are not the same as everyone else's and am willing to let them make choices different from mine.
And I recognise that animal torture involves more than one person and their beliefs and values.
You can claim my definition is "fucked up" but you've failed to provide a better one.
It was never my intention to do so, just to point out the flaws in what the OP was saying.
Maybe, as I claimed originally, you're just a typical american who does not support freedom, but have blindly assumed you did because it is a positive sounding word whose definition you've never really thought very hard about.
I'm not even American. I believe in social freedom and social responsibility, I believe that when done right government can be an expression of that, and I believe that there are grey areas when you try to define exactly what "freedom" is.
"Would it make sense to say that if someone chose to hunt and kill foxes other people would disagree with that choice?"
In the same way you could say that baby murder is a choice that some other people might disagree with.
"If they support freedom, however, they have to allow others to make that choice they feel is wrong."
Fox hunting is not in the same class of "choice" as the other things the OP mentioned, heroin is a choice that doesn't directly affect another being. Or do you believe that any animal torture/mutilation/murder is fine as it's a "choice"? If so then I guess I just don't support freedom, by your fucked up definition.
"Its a well known fact Sonny Jim, that there's a secret society of the 5 wealthiest people in the world known as the Pentaverate, who run everything in the world including the newspapers and meet triannually at a country mansion in Colorado known as The Meadows."
"So Whos in this Pentaverate?"
"The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, AND Colonel Sanders before he went tits up. Ahh I hated the Colonel with his wee beady eyes and that smug look on his face...ooooh your gonna buy my chicken oooh!"
"Dad, how can you hate the Colonel?"
"Because you puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly, Smartarse!"
"it is also not the paragon of virtue. it is mostly bumbling bureaucrats who mean well"
Agreed, partially. It's also made up of people who specific moral agendas and biases, prejudices and (worse, IMHO) those who are willing to sell out the people they are representing for their own political, social or financial gain.
"so when people go at the american government like they are talking about a sneaky evil out to enslave all of mankind, they sound like retarded matrix fanboys, not intelligent wary citizens out protecting our freedoms"
Please quote where I have said they are sneaky evil out to enslave mankind. Please quote, in fact, where I made the slightest comment about the character of the government. I expressed worry at people's complacency and total trust of authority, I didn't sat "because they're hiding the alien corpses and the human vivisection plants"
Don't let that stop your nice rant though, I know you enjoy one cts.
The fact that the biometric data is stored on the chip in the passport does not mean it can be accesses or reproduced.
Look at chip credit cards. You cannot retrieve a PIN from them, even though an encrypted and hashed version resides on the chip. You can't even get the hash; just an answer, yes or no, whether what is presented is correct or not. I would presume that any sensible passport scheme would be much the same. Am I wrong?
Actually we're more likely to ee silly walks outlawed.
If you're walking unusually, you must be doing it to throw off the tracking software, and if you're trying to throw off the tracking, then you must be intending to commit a crime, citizen.
I actually worked a bit on some of the theory behind gait recognition when I was a student. Interesting from a technical perspective but scary as hell in terms of what it could be used for. Other than the obvious of course. The classic example of legitimate use is a bank robbery where cctv footage is too low res to make out faces. But it could be used for much more.
The average person will simply think the government is doing more to look out for *them*.
A few false arrests and multi-year imprisonments because of a software bug or flaw in the biometric database? Just the price to be paid for security.
That particular way of thinking sickens me, but it's quite prevalent. Many people (my mother included) would far rather see 10 innocents imprisoned than one guilty man go free. Because they're terrorists or something.
I try to explain that I know have Iranian family on my father's side and next time it could be me that's falsely accused of associating with and aiding people (incorrectly) thought to be terrorists. But that doesn't seem to get through, that there could ever be a mistake. Somewhere in the back of a lot of folks minds there's this strong conviction that mistakes like that just don't happen, despite multiple high profile examples to the contrary, and even if they do, it doesn't matter because they don't think it can happen to them. Because why would it? I'm a good person, why would the government arrest me?
At that point I usually give up trying to argue and go back to mourning the state of the world. No, it doesn't win me any points, realising that the average person is about as questioning of authority as a faithful puppy, it is unfortunately the true state of the world though.
Not most places anyhow. 8 years ago when OnDigital were first launching then yes, you needed someone to come round and verify your house aerial was good enough.
Now the boxes run just fine with a 5 quid set top aerial. They've either sorted the issue and are able to decode better, or the signal's been turned up, because you really don't even need a house aerial any more.
Slashdot Mirror
Err, no.
It'll leave your wallet lighter, your nose sore and you'll have the hangover of the century because it makes you think you can drink like bacchus himself.
But then I'm probably getting old, I don't wish to pay such a price for my fun any more.
I'll agree with that. I personally have no intention of doing so.
Well, given that any additional delay in an airport already beset by myriad "security" delays is a problem and might make you miss a flight and could, as a result ruin your holiday, I'm not sure that's melodramatic.
And as we're seeing more examples of people being detained and denied travel for pretty spurious reasons, well no, I don't consider any extra people going to a secondary screening lottery to be any better.
+1 Funny :)
OTOH I really don't think it's that uncommon amongst geeks to screw up wording, phraseology, pronunciation and/or intonation when talking to authority figures or (attractive) members of the opposite sex.
Mah bus was bigger than yours! MWAAAAAAAAAUUH!
Dunno how true this might be, but bear with my conjecture here -
If you're the sort of person so convinced in the reality and greatness of Allah that you'll willingly go to your own death, does that not imply something in the way of confidence in what you're doing?
Ordinary hijackers may be different, but a religious terrorist already on their way to martyrdom?
"That is, we have to be realistic about the rates of false positives so that we don't make the bottlenecks worse for minimal payoff."
/. crowd, but I think we need to recognize that some policies and mechanisms are better than others if we want people to listen to us."
RTA, the false positive rate is about 99%. The people caught have been people in possession of drugs, or other minor issues (by the sounds of it). I'd be interested to learn the background rate in society and how this compares to random selection.
"I think it's important to encourage organizations to properly resource these sorts of efforts because the alternatives simply aren't as effective"
1. I think a monkey could do better
2. It'll never be properly resourced because the usual crowd will do the job - those who will accept standing around for hours on end in exchange for a little money and a little power over others.
"I appreciate the skepticism of the
Yup, the policy of leaving me the hell alone and stopping kicking the wasps nest (middle east) would probably be just as good.
Being observed and making note of their behavior for further observation is not a full cavity search or being hassled for hours.
If they're just observing and taking notes then, pardon my french, what fucking use is that? If they're doing more than that then (whilst the cavity search comment was deliberately over the top) it could develop into anything.
People don't give people "funny looks" by accident.
Yup, yes they do. I do. You'll find multiple other posts in response to this story from people who are socially inept, or whose hold over their own "normality" slips when stressed.
They do it on purpose, then claim later they're misunderstood.
You're not inside my head. Things come out weirdly, worded wrongly, stuttered. This happens frequently when I'm nervous and I don't think for a second I'm unique.
Been in IT long enough to know there's generally a victim mentality coupled with a minor god complex.
Maybe it's time to get out of the server room and meet some software engineers.
Anti-authority and pro-chaos are two distinctly different things. Not attempting to find and stop bad guys is pro-chaos.
Define bad. The people trying to catch "bad" guys have some pretty screwed up values of "bad" these days.
And I am pro some chaos. We have a multitude of unfair, unjust and just plain stupid laws on the books. I do not support any move by the mechanisms of state to further enforce their codes of law, to further impinge upon people's lives or to further extend their own powers until such time as we have had full on democratic reform (to rid of us of corruption and corporate rule) and legal review (to restore our freedom of action and rid ourselves of nanny statism).
OK, I'll bite. Explain to me why you might disagree that someone lighting a shoe bomb is not a bad guy doing a bad thing.
No. They are doing a bad thing.
However these methods are already being used as a great trawl net to catch people on grey areas like drug possession. I do not agree that drug possession being a bad thing, nor does it warrant everyone coming under even more scrutiny when trying to travel peacably. In fact not only is it an intrusion into peoples lives it's a total waste of resource.
That's what this is about. To carry on with that note: you may disagree with using "unreliable" methods, but I note you provide not a single suggestion as to a "reliable" one.
Why should I? I think airport security is an overblown mess and we can do without these techniques.
"Are you going to go into a school playground and blow yourself apart along with many kids because of these measures?"
???
What I meant was that if you're paranoid then the authorities will start taking an interest. So you'll probably get worse, and they'll take more of an interest and... Thus paranoia (they're all after me!!) becomes reality.
I didn't mean that the fear of terrorism is a self fulfilling prophecy. How did you reach that conclusion?
"Then again, I don't insist on wearing tinfoil hats. I WANT bad guys doing bad things caught. I guess I'm in the minority here on /."
/. you'll find that people aren't quite as willing as average to submit to full body cavity searches in the name of their own security. Or being hassled for hours in an interrogation room because you looked at someone funny. Maybe because we're more socially dysfunctional than average and are always giving people funny looks by accident...
/. have something to do with the constant flow of stories here on /. (and, to be fair, anywhere else people with half a brain gather) about bad legislation, bad policing, corrupt or transparently bought-out government.
Oh me too. We all want bad guys doing bad things to be caught. But here on
You might also find the roots of the more prevalent anti-authoritarian attitude here on
I fundamentally do not agree with the current crop of legislators on who is a "bad guy doing a bad thing", and I also fundamentally disagree with using unreliable methods to detect said individuals.
Also from TFA -
"The problem is behavioral characteristics will be found where you look for them," the American Civil Liberties of Massachusetts legal director John Reinstein told The Washington Post.
I happen to agree with him.
Honestly this is awful. From TFA -
... there are behavior cues that show it. ... A brief flash of fear."
"When someone lies or tries to be deceptive,
Now, creative editing aside (lotsa dots in there), what happens when I display a fear microexpression when I'm asked if I have any bomb?
Because that's what's going to happen, because with all this overhyped security I'm tense and slightly afraid when I'm dealing with these people anyway. Why? Because they have the power, on suspiciuon alone, to really ruin my day, my entire holiday, my business trip or perhaps even my life, depending on just how far they want to take everything.
So yes, when I get a grilling from a security agent, he's going to see fear. And the fact I now know (s)he's looking for it will make it even more likely.
Welcome the new world where paranoia becomes a self fulfilling phenomenon.
Not at all. A human baby is recognized by our society as having human rights and responsibilities
And there's where your post falls down. By our society. Which you are proposing to change anyway by the introduction of this so called "freedom". By using the phrase "in our society" you show that this is all still relative. Where exactly is the line drawn? Maybe "freedom" in another society does include child murder. By your own admission children can't take on responsibilities until later, which you consider the price of rights. Historically, some societies have considered children to be property of parents until that point and parents have the right of life or death. Are you going to take away their freedom of choice?
The point I'm trying to make is that the moment you try and draw any sort of line, you'll fail.
You mean it isn't the same because it is one of the choices you disagree with, or do you have some other criteria you think differentiates it?
I made it explicitly clear in my last post I consider it qualitatively different. And yes, the phrase "I consider" is roughly equivalent to "in our society".
I recognize that my beliefs and values are not the same as everyone else's and am willing to let them make choices different from mine.
And I recognise that animal torture involves more than one person and their beliefs and values.
You can claim my definition is "fucked up" but you've failed to provide a better one.
It was never my intention to do so, just to point out the flaws in what the OP was saying.
Maybe, as I claimed originally, you're just a typical american who does not support freedom, but have blindly assumed you did because it is a positive sounding word whose definition you've never really thought very hard about.
I'm not even American. I believe in social freedom and social responsibility, I believe that when done right government can be an expression of that, and I believe that there are grey areas when you try to define exactly what "freedom" is.
I fail to be convinced by your line of reasoning.
"Would it make sense to say that if someone chose to hunt and kill foxes other people would disagree with that choice?"
In the same way you could say that baby murder is a choice that some other people might disagree with.
"If they support freedom, however, they have to allow others to make that choice they feel is wrong."
Fox hunting is not in the same class of "choice" as the other things the OP mentioned, heroin is a choice that doesn't directly affect another being.
Or do you believe that any animal torture/mutilation/murder is fine as it's a "choice"? If so then I guess I just don't support freedom, by your fucked up definition.
Freedom for the fox!
"Its a well known fact Sonny Jim, that there's a secret society of the 5 wealthiest people in the world known as the Pentaverate, who run everything in the world including the newspapers and meet triannually at a country mansion in Colorado known as The Meadows."
"So Whos in this Pentaverate?"
"The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, AND Colonel Sanders before he went tits up. Ahh I hated the Colonel with his wee beady eyes and that smug look on his face...ooooh your gonna buy my chicken oooh!"
"Dad, how can you hate the Colonel?"
"Because you puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly, Smartarse!"
lol. which country were you thinking of?
"the american government is not satan incarnate"
And nowhere did I say it was.
"it is also not the paragon of virtue. it is mostly bumbling bureaucrats who mean well"
Agreed, partially. It's also made up of people who specific moral agendas and biases, prejudices and (worse, IMHO) those who are willing to sell out the people they are representing for their own political, social or financial gain.
"so when people go at the american government like they are talking about a sneaky evil out to enslave all of mankind, they sound like retarded matrix fanboys, not intelligent wary citizens out protecting our freedoms"
Please quote where I have said they are sneaky evil out to enslave mankind. Please quote, in fact, where I made the slightest comment about the character of the government. I expressed worry at people's complacency and total trust of authority, I didn't sat "because they're hiding the alien corpses and the human vivisection plants"
Don't let that stop your nice rant though, I know you enjoy one cts.
The fact that the biometric data is stored on the chip in the passport does not mean it can be accesses or reproduced.
Look at chip credit cards. You cannot retrieve a PIN from them, even though an encrypted and hashed version resides on the chip. You can't even get the hash; just an answer, yes or no, whether what is presented is correct or not. I would presume that any sensible passport scheme would be much the same. Am I wrong?
Actually we're more likely to ee silly walks outlawed.
If you're walking unusually, you must be doing it to throw off the tracking software, and if you're trying to throw off the tracking, then you must be intending to commit a crime, citizen.
I actually worked a bit on some of the theory behind gait recognition when I was a student. Interesting from a technical perspective but scary as hell in terms of what it could be used for. Other than the obvious of course. The classic example of legitimate use is a bank robbery where cctv footage is too low res to make out faces. But it could be used for much more.
The average person will simply think the government is doing more to look out for *them*.
A few false arrests and multi-year imprisonments because of a software bug or flaw in the biometric database? Just the price to be paid for security.
That particular way of thinking sickens me, but it's quite prevalent. Many people (my mother included) would far rather see 10 innocents imprisoned than one guilty man go free. Because they're terrorists or something.
I try to explain that I know have Iranian family on my father's side and next time it could be me that's falsely accused of associating with and aiding people (incorrectly) thought to be terrorists. But that doesn't seem to get through, that there could ever be a mistake. Somewhere in the back of a lot of folks minds there's this strong conviction that mistakes like that just don't happen, despite multiple high profile examples to the contrary, and even if they do, it doesn't matter because they don't think it can happen to them. Because why would it? I'm a good person, why would the government arrest me?
At that point I usually give up trying to argue and go back to mourning the state of the world. No, it doesn't win me any points, realising that the average person is about as questioning of authority as a faithful puppy, it is unfortunately the true state of the world though.
Much the same, yes. I've played a couple of simpsons games in my time and they were pretty poor too.
Ah well, I do live in London, quite centrally, so I'm pretty much bound to be an exception!
Not most places anyhow. 8 years ago when OnDigital were first launching then yes, you needed someone to come round and verify your house aerial was good enough.
Now the boxes run just fine with a 5 quid set top aerial. They've either sorted the issue and are able to decode better, or the signal's been turned up, because you really don't even need a house aerial any more.
Our first PC had a 30MB HD capacity. And that's the first PC, not the first computer.
I'm only 29!
I play quite a few games and usually all the way through.
Futurama defeated me with it's frustrating gameplay and just general crapitude.
I LOVE futurama, but even the odd quote didn't stop me giving up after the millionth time bender fell off something and died.